There’s the Law, and Then There’s The Law

in

Column by tzo.

Exclusive to STR

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

 
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
 
~ Frédéric Bastiat
 
These are the words with which Bastiat began his famous treatise "The Law" in 1850, and it remains imperative today to focus attention on the serious fact that the law has been perverted and inverted and achieves the opposite of what it professes to accomplish.
 
But if this has truly been an ongoing and serious problem for such a long time, why is it not generally recognized? Wouldn’t most people today judge that Bastiat was overstating his case? The law may not be perfect, but to call it evil is surely a gross exaggeration, isn’t it?
 
Well, we have to begin by looking at that little three-letter word, "law," and consider just what it means to the average person who hears it. Most people think of themselves as good, law-abiding people, and it is no small factor that "good" and "law-abiding" go together like chocolate and peanut butter here. This can be a very useful pairing for those who create the law, and a very difficult pairing to separate in the minds of those who have been taught about the law by those who create the law.
 
To make discussion of these matters even more difficult, many will deny the assertion that it is the same organization that both creates and teaches about the law—an obvious conflict of interest—but of course that invisibility is the beauty of the system, and the key to why it is so successful.
 
The government creates the law, and the government teaches the people—beginning at a very tender age—all about the law. They also manage to convince their charges that these are two distinct and separate organizations—or at least two very distant and unrelated branches of the same organization—that really have nothing to do with each other. Legislators legislate, teachers teach, and ne’er the twain shall meet. Genius!
 
Well as you might guess, I subscribe to the view that the government is the government wherever it is in charge, and it's main job is to look out for itself and to keep itself going and growing.
 
Government has discovered that by molding (double meaning intended) the minds of its citizenry, it can fabricate an invisible holding cell wherein the unaware citizen believes all sorts of contradictions that effectively keeps him trapped within a prison he cannot see and cannot believe exists because he knows perfectly well that he is free. But it was noted long ago by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe that:
 
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
 
Government education is not incidental or unrelated to other government endeavors—Indeed, it is essential!
 
One of the main indoctrination points drilled into the students of government schools is that the government creates the law of the land, and that law is to be obeyed because it is moral and ethical to do so. Good people obey the law, and bad people break it: Keep it simple for the kiddies.
 
Oh, it will be grudgingly admitted that some legislation gets passed here and there that really isn't quite right, but then the course of action is to petition the government for change. There are proper channels. This citizen feedback-mechanism helps keep law and order on the straight and narrow moral and ethical path. Everyone pitches in! Participatory warm and fuzzy goodness flows uphill to the halls of legislative power, whose occupant-servants bow down and correct their imperfect offerings before the real power, The People.
 
So sayeth the sacred Political Science texts, and as it was written, so shall it be done. Amen.
 
If this is to be the platform upon which an objective analysis of the law is to be launched, then Bastiat must necessarily be found to have been a raving lunatic. Of course any objective analysis that is based upon such an irrational platform as “the government law is good because the government schools say so” is merely an exercise in providing detailed answers to the wrong questions.
 
Bastiat’s observations and conclusions were reached through analysis based upon the infinitely firmer foundation of first principles: What is law, exactly? Where did it come from and what is its function? No jumping in midstream with assumptions of intrinsic goodness just because that’s what everybody says.
 
The law to which Bastiat referred is the Natural Law, which is the logical discovery of an objective set of rules that define ethical—and thus lawful—human behavior.
 
The law to which most people refer today is Positive Law, which is a subjective set of manufactured arbitrary rules that supposedly define moral—and thus lawful—human behavior.
 
When the Positive Law overwhelms the Natural Law, this turns what was meant to be a system of determining just solutions to human conflicts into an arbitrary set of rules imposed by legislators to further their own ends at the expense of justice. This was the point Bastiat was making, and I don’t see but that the problem has worsened considerably over the last century-and-a-half.
 
The current system of US government is a perpetual motion machine that emits legislation faster than 535 monkeys could crank out random pages on 535 typewriters. There are several thousands of pages of legislation in the ever-growing US Code.
 
And so today we have reached the point where most people automatically associate the word “law” with mandates sent down from the on-high government offices. The Natural Law is buried under a mountain of arbitrary legislation and is no longer even acknowledged to exist.
 
People used to be fairly justified in conflating law and ethics when the law had a much stronger Natural Law component. Being a good, law-abiding person coincided fairly well with being an ethical person, which was not considered to be some mysterious attribute that no one could define.
 
As the “law” has become detached from Natural Law, being a good, law-abiding person necessitates that one assign “good” to Positive Law and “arbitrary” to ethics, since the two do not overlap.
 
So what was once good is now arbitrary, while the arbitrary has become the good. With such a nebulous foundation, anything can happen, and it certainly has. This explains how the “good” citizens, who follow the law of the land that they themselves helped shape and create, can have it all backwards and not see the problem.
 
And the only way this inverted philosophy can be sustained is to make it common curriculum for all government schools starting with kindergarten and then having true-believer-government-school-educated teachers continuously drilling it into students for the following twelve years: The government is good. The laws are just. Obey authority.
 
Break. Your. Training.

 

9.83333
Your rating: None Average: 9.8 (6 votes)
tzo's picture
Columnist tzo
Columns on STR: 64

tzo now lives in your head.

Comments

Suverans2's picture

"The law to which Bastiat referred is the Natural Law, which is the logical discovery of an objective set of rules that define ethical—and thus lawful—human behavior." ~ tzo

If my 'friend', Frédéric, could speak to you from the grave, he would say, Mon Dieu, tzo, quel article! Ceci est un exemple parfait de la façon de frapper la racine!

tanhadron's picture

Unfortunately, if one doesn't accept the notion of "God-given" natural law, the whole "positive law is bad, natural law is good" argument is far less useful. There is no "objective" natural law. Sorry, but there just isn't, as much as we want there to be. The best we can do is try to come up with a framework or convincing justification for why one set of laws--or type of laws--is better than another; or why one set or type of behavior MUST be subject to laws and others not. Towards that end, I would say the better discussion or argument, instead of "natural law v. positive law" is that although all laws are positive laws, that those centered around enforcing NEGATIVE RIGHTS are more valid or justified than those centered around POSITIVE RIGHTS. In other words, let's scale the tens of thousands of positive laws "on the books" (most of which presume to protect or enforce or obligate people relative to others' positive rights) down to just a handful of positive laws that instead protect or enforce NEGATIVE rights (with NO obligations on people to provide relative to others' positive "rights").

AtlasAikido's picture

Actually it's the other way round...

Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

The Market for Liberty
9781610162456
Morris and Linda Tannehill
http://mises.org/resources/6058

Book review--Freedom Naturally
http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally

Agreed on scaling down the law. There need only be one. The NAP--non aggression principle.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Covenant of Unanimous Consent....A Proposal...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

... Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of *interpersonal relationships* based on those moral principles.

The Covenant satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner. Instead of being a document that describes how the government shall act, and a document YOU did not sign, the Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if you agree. Those who do not sign (the “dissenters” mentioned by Ayn Rand above) are not punished, they are simply and clearly warned what to expect if they violate the rights of Signatories.

(Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers to replace the (much better) Articles of Confederation, while both Jefferson and Adams were in Europe--the Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize).

Excerpts: How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent
fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html

PS I do agree with Nathanial Branden's First Causes--that he wrote and which Rand edited on infinite regress and reversing existence with causality regarding the question of the existence of a big ghost in heaven.

John T. Kennedy's picture

Okay, I've just read Smith's proposed covenant and I find that it is not a proper covenant at all. It explicitly styles itself as an agreement yet it outlines only negative moral responsibilities which all men share regardless of any agreement.

Spooner would reject this document out of hand. He would observe it is absurd to agree to act justly since such supposed agreement neither adds anything to nor subtracts anything from an individual's moral obligations.

To declare the the moral principles on recognizes is of course fine, but to frame this as an agreement is a terrible idea. To even craft such a supposed agreement is highly misleading since it quite naturally creates the false impression that only signatories are morally bound by these negative moral responsibilities when in fact all men are so bound to any valid moral obligation identified in the document whether they sign or not.

AtlasAikido's picture

What negative moral responsibilities does John refer to?

Spooner is dead. What specific things did he write that are contrary to the Covenant? I can't speak for Spooner only quote what he has written. Spooner objected to the Constitution because he did not sign it. His objection was anything he did not sign he had no obligation to. The Covenant is something *I* signed if I agree with it and overcomes that.

When I signed it no one viewed it the way John portrays nor anyone I know. Spooner himself objected to something he not sign. And signatories do not necessarily expect others to be bound by something they did not sign.

John T. Kennedy's picture

"What negative moral responsibilities does John refer to?"

Concisely, the responsibility to refrain from aggression: the NAP. It's not subject to agreement - everyone is morally constrained by the NAP regardless of agreement.

"Spooner is dead."

I'm aware of that, but you cited him anyway.

"What specific things did he write that are contrary to the Covenant?"

Spooner wrote: "“Lawmakers, as they call themselves, can add nothing to it, nor take anything from it. Therefore all their laws, as they call them, — that is, all the laws of their own making, — have no color of authority or obligation. It is a falsehood to call them laws; for there is nothing in them that either creates men’s duties or rights, or enlightens them as to their duties or rights. There is consequently nothing binding or obligatory about them. And nobody is bound to take the least notice of them, unless it be to trample them under foot, as usurpations. If they command men to do justice, they add nothing to men’s obligation to do it, or to any man’s right to enforce it. They are therefore mere idle wind, such as would be commands to consider the day as day, and the night as night. If they command or license any man to do injustice, they are criminal on their face. If they command any man to do anything which justice does not require him to do, they are simple, naked usurpations and tyrannies. If they forbid any man to do anything, which justice could permit him to do, they are criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty. In whatever light, therefore, they are viewed, they are utterly destitute of everything like authority or obligation. They are all necessarily either the impudent, fraudulent, and criminal usurpations of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, or the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men, who do not know, or certainly do not realize, what they are doing. “ From: http://lysanderspooner.org/node/62

This was addressing legislation but it applies well to this supposed covenant. After all, legislation is supposed to be binding as a consequence of agreement. Spooner would say that a supposed agreement to do what you are already morally bound to do as "mere idle wind" and "the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men, who do not know, or certainly do not realize, what they are doing".

"Spooner objected to the Constitution because he did not sign it. His objection was anything he did not sign he had no obligation to."

That wasn't his only objection, not by a country mile! You can find a more comprehensive list of his objection here:

http://jim.com/treason.htm

Spooner would *never* say that Natural Law, the entire subject of Smith's supposed agreement, was not binding upon him because he had not signed it.

"The Covenant is something *I* signed if I agree with it and overcomes that. "

There are different senses of the word "agree". You and I may agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Upon this matter then we may be said to be in agreement. We may even sign declarations that we recognize that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But none of this would constitute an agreement in the sense of a covenant or a contract, none of it would impose the slightest obligation upon either of us. A proper contract or covenant produces new obligations that have been agreed upon.

So when you style the NAP as a covenant it strongly implies that principles therein are the product of agreement. But they are not the product of agreement, so this is a terrible idea.

AtlasAikido's picture

Re: "Spooner is dead." and I'm [John] aware of that, but you cited him anyway.

You pretended you knew what Spooner would think about the Covenant. You never explained why he would think that. Whereas I made reference to what Spooner actually wrote.

Re: "What specific things did he write that are contrary to the Covenant?"

Of course, neither I nor Spooner have any obligation to something that neither of us signed. But I did sign the Covenant voluntarily. Since you did not sign the Covenant I do not expect you to be bound by it. Not only did he not sign the Constituion but would not because he considered it the product of "the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men". That has nothing to do with the Covenant. As for me I do not presume to know whether he would have approved the Covenant or not.

Re: Spooner would *never* say that Natural Law, the entire subject of Smith's supposed agreement, was not binding upon him because he had not signed it.

How can you presume to say somebody would not sign something? How can you presume to know the subject of someones mind without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?

John T. Kennedy's picture

"Of course, neither I nor Spooner have any obligation to something that neither of us signed. But I did sign the Covenant voluntarily. Since you did not sign the Covenant I do not expect you to be bound by it."

How are you bound by this supposed Covenant? Can you cite one thing it morally constrains you from doing that you were not already morally constrained from doing before signing?

You've signed the document and I have not. You say you are bound by it and I am not. Can you cite any difference in our moral obligations or responsibilities to anyone based on the fact that you've signed and I have not?

GeoffreyTransom's picture

It is unambiguously not neccessary to accept the idea of some genocidal Sky-Wizard in order to accept that there are some objectively discernible behavioural rules which will arise endogenously in pretty much any interaction between one animal and another (particularly those interactions that have a non-trivial time-dimension). It doesn't matter to me if it's called "law", or not.

The objective quality is simple: those behaviours that will result in an intertemporal Nash equilibrium, are 'right'.

They're not 'right' because they are nice, or because they are just, or because they result in this or that outcome. They're right because they're *efficient* - which means that they have a comparative advantage in the evolutionary race.

Consider 'truth' - the idea that on balance, we think that it's better to tell the truth than to lie.

At root, truth is better than lies (in normal interactions) because in questions of fact ("How do I get to the bank from here?") the set of 'true' answers is much smaller than the set of false answers. The set of false answers is almost infinite, but always wrong: thus posing the question "How do I get to the bank from here?"is pointless in a world where you know that every answer is a lie (or even that the preponderance of answers are lies).

In other words, to the extent that language is about transmission and exchange of information, it takes place more EFFICIENTLY if the 'bias' is towards truth. (That said, 100% truth probably results in an equilibrium that is Nash-unstable, intertemporally... the existence of a non-zero amount of lying serves to keep us on our guard).

And so it is with other rules that we might be tempted to think of as 'core values' - and to me there are very few... don't do kill/maim/assault (most of the time), don't lie (again, most of the time), don't steal.

Most other rules are variations on those three themes... which in turn all derive from the one basic principle upon which voluntaryism is based: don't *initiate* the use of force (or fraud).

That one rule gets you to a stable multiperiod equilibrium, whereas the State's version (which begins "In a population N, define a set of people G that are allowed to initiate violence") does not result in a stable equilibrium. And it fails because it's *inefficient* (and vice versa) because unless the initiation of violence is 'absolute' (i.e., killing all dissenters and everyone who might seek to avenge them), it engenders dynamic processes that result in increased volatility and uncertainty.

"Law" (and 'law'... reminds me of the Chinese baddie in Maxwell Smart: "No, not 'the craw'... 'the CRAW'!")... as I was saying, "law" in the Bastiatian sense is simply the codification of the set of behavioural norms that is consistent with long-term Nash equilibrium.

And of course there will ALWAYS be people who will be willing to attempt to deviate from a Nash structure - people with truncated horizons, and people who are just plain wired up wrong (the set [Cheney, Kristol, Obama, Scalia, Yoo, Bybee, Abrams, Sarkozy, Wolfowitz, Perle, Blair] is illustrative, but not exhaustive).

Likewise, there are people who are too stupid to be able to form sensible expectations about the ramifications of ALLOWING the square-bracketed scum above to force deviations from the stable manifold.

What these two groups do, is set up unstable intertemporal dynamics - the good news is that those dynamics can be exploited WITHOUT departing from the 'Nash Group' (the group that continues to observe the rules that define the Nash equilibrium). Marc Faber is a good example; Jim Rogers is another. Both these men became multi-millionaires without ever violating what I would consider to be acceptable behavioural norms.

Chaeros Galt's picture

@tanhadron
For to start with you are mistaking Natural given concept, with a fairy tale character given concept, nobody spoke of God or Superman, nor any other fictional creature, so your poin there is invalid... Natural law is according I think to each individual and tends not to trespass your neighbor's boundary, while Artificial Law is according to a collective and tends to impose what you must or must not do only by the means of benefit certain individuals, who believes to be superior to us, the common people, name them Kings, Ministers, Chancellors or Presidents, that is my understanding of this article. Read your comment again and you will note if you are intelligent that you used a lot of words just to say nothing of help. I can only hope that you break your chain soon enough. Kind regards and best wishes

John T. Kennedy's picture

"There is no "objective" natural law. Sorry, but there just isn't, as much as we want there to be. The best we can do is try to come up with a framework or convincing justification for why one set of laws--or type of laws--is better than another..."

A justification based on what, other than objective reality?

tzo's picture

@tanhadron

It seems that if I accept the first two sentences of your post, then your conclusion is completely arbitrary and you have zero basis for your argument, since it is as subjective as anyone else's. You are arguing from opinion, which is not a strong position.

I know its fashionable these days to declare ethics subjective, but you know there is a good basis for your argument, and that basis has some grounding in objectivity.

If you would like to defend the statement that "randomly killing people should be allowed and tolerated by human society," then such a successful defense would convince me of the complete arbitrariness of natural law.

One of the defining features of anything that is called "law" is universality. If the law should be applied to murder, then murder is either always preferable or never. The logical answer should be obvious, considering that we are autonomous survival units. That is what we all do and strive to continue doing. It is quite objective to say "Living, good. Dying, bad. So murder bad."

As far as rational human beings are concerned, how subjective is that?

Samarami's picture

Good essay. You make the case for "natural law".

Your picturesque detail is what you and I face every day:

    One of the main indoctrination points drilled into the students of government schools is that the government creates the law of the land, and that law is to be obeyed because it is moral and ethical to do so. Good people obey the law, and bad people break it: Keep it simple for the kiddies.

    Oh, it will be grudgingly admitted that some legislation gets passed here and there that really isn't quite right, but then the course of action is to petition the government for change. There are proper channels. This citizen feedback-mechanism helps keep law and order on the straight and narrow moral and ethical path. Everyone pitches in! Participatory warm and fuzzy goodness flows uphill to the halls of legislative power, whose occupant-servants bow down and correct their imperfect offerings before the real power, The People.

    So sayeth the sacred Political Science texts, and as it was written, so shall it be done. Amen.

All the Ron Paul's in Texas wouldn't change the fact that these are the folks we have to work with (and around). They're the majority. That may slowly change, but not soon.

And it's a reason it was appropriate for me to become sovereign. I observe natural law every day, and try to obey (or suffer the consequences). Natural law is simply critical (cause/effect) thinking.

As Geoffrey stated above, I know "right" from "wrong". It's not that difficult to discern these things naturally. I need no written law to understand, for instance, that I should not try to seduce your wife, girl friend or daughter (aside from the futility at my age or even the likelihood that you'd shoot my ass -- and I'd deserve it).

Freedom is simpler than many of us make out.

Sam

John T. Kennedy's picture

@Samarami

Scare quotes often confuse me. Is there a difference between 1) knowing right from wrong, and 2) knowing "right" from "wrong"?

Suverans2's picture

You're in pretty good company, tzo.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner
____________________________________________________________________________________

"The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom [common law] or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus [statute law]

In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: ...by slavish conformity to custom [common law], by arbitrary whim [statute law], or by use of man’s reason [natural law]". ~ Murray N. Rothbard

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/three.asp
____________________________________________________________________________________

"The natural law always buries its undertakers." ~ Etienne Gilson Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard
____________________________________________________________________________________

"...we need to promote the idea of natural law, that an act is lawful or criminal on its own merits, and not because of the decree of some group of rulers. The idea of natural law is more important than the specifics of its content, because once this idea is accepted, the state and its statutes are no longer relevant when discussing the lawfulness of an act." ~ Rule-of-law Anarchism: A Strategy for Destroying the State's Legitimacy by Kevin S. Van Horn
____________________________________________________________________________________

"There is nothing mysterious about the natural law of the human world. To repeat, it is the order of natural persons -- human beings that are capable of rational, purposive action, speech and thought." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
____________________________________________________________________________________

″Natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason.″ ~ Hugo Grotius
____________________________________________________________________________________

"A philosopher can choose to disbelieve in Newton's laws, but this will not enable him to fly. He can disbelieve in natural law, but political and social institutions built on false law will fail, just as a bridge built on false physical law will fall..." ~ James A. Donald http://jim.com/rights.html
____________________________________________________________________________________

"The concept of natural law is the heritage from the Ancients which has had the most profound impact on the flowering of liberty." ~ Grotius and the Natural Law Tradition
____________________________________________________________________________________

"...the natural law is fundamental to human existence..." ~ C.S. Lewis

According to C.S. Lewis, it is the "deep magic" that everyone knows.
____________________________________________________________________________________

"The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9

tanhadron's picture

@GeoffreyTransom (and many of the rest of you):

So we adopt a set of supposed objective morals because they are "efficient"? Something is "right" because it is efficient?

The "laws" created to reflect what the collective believe are "rights" and "wrongs" are just a set of "shoulds." I never said there are no objective, natural "laws" (like gravity, or other laws of physics governing the natural world). But let's not confuse those types of immutable, objective "laws" with "laws" that we're talking about--a set of "shoulds" that do or are proposed, to govern human interaction. Hey, nobody is a firmer, more resolute advocate of the non-aggression principle than me. "Do not initiate aggression on persons or their property" is my mantra. But can we really say that that "should" rises to the level of being an objective, "natural" truth or law handed down by some "sky-wizard" (great description, GeoffreyTransom--love it!)?

I want the non-aggression principle to be an objective truth or to form the basis for an objective morality. But what if, hypothetically, MY morality, my "efficiency" dictates that I take my neighbor's money and property; gee, that's very efficient then, for me. I get to fund all my wants and desires with little effort. Are my actions therefore "moral"? According to G.Transom, the efficiency inherent therein make them so. Can we really say that the non-aggression principle is objective? Don't get me wrong--we need a set of "shoulds" to govern human behavior; to lessen the conflict that is concomitant with many people vying for scarce resources and who have competing goals, objectives, needs, and wants. But the NAP is, after all, just another "should." I'm not saying it is not the "should" to be adopted as the girding of an ethical system. On the contrary, the NAP IS the "should" that would not only be the most "efficient" and workable at reducing conflict and making things "work" (free market would flourish; happiness; peace, harmony, etc.); but it would also satisfy MY personal morality and, I suspect, that of millions of people--including everybody involved in this discussion. I'm not knocking the NAP; I'm not supporting the arbitrariness of positive law and the suffering it has brought; I'm not reducing all morals to the same level and arguing that every system of proposed behavior ("shoulds") is equal to the other. I'm just saying that (to quote from "Noesis" during an excellent discussion on this topic--link below) "objective truth and objective morality are two different things," and "it is perfectly valid to say: 'It is objectively true that morals are subjective.' Just like it's also true to say: 'It is objectively true that dreams are subjective.'" Once we admit this to ourselves, it's perfectly okay to move forward and discuss why it is better or not to adopt a set of "shoulds" (laws) to govern human interaction for reasons of efficiency, universality, etc. etc. Do I want a universally applied set of "shoulds"? Of course. Are they God-given? No, sorry. Gravity is "God-given" so to speak. The NAP is not, as much as I want it to be. But again, I'm not dismissing the NAP as a wonderful, workable, personally-adopted morality which I urge every human being to adopt....why? Because it is feels "right," it is efficient, it works, it lessens conflict and promotes the best and most efficient use of resources, etc. etc. It's just that the "Sky-Wizard" didn't create it or dictate it be the basis for our collective morality.

And Tzo, you wrote: "One of the defining features of anything that is called 'law' is universality. If the law should be applied to murder, then murder is either always preferable or never. The logical answer should be obvious, considering that we are autonomous survival units. That is what we all do and strive to continue doing. It is quite objective to say 'Living, good. Dying, bad. So murder bad.' "

Yes, I've read all that Stephan Molyneux stuff about "universally preferable behavior" etc. I agree it's good to adopt, collectively as a society, a universal blueprint for behavior (shoulds or should-nots; or maybe more accurately "must nots"). Such a universal blueprint doesn't exist as a God-given blueprint; we must persuade why that blueprint is the best and most "moral" (if we want to couch it in such terms). For decades I have tried to persuade people that the NAP is that blueprint that should form a basis for a collective morality or ethics.

For an excellent discussion on this topic--page after page of wonderfully thought-provoking discussion and which goes in far more depth and does it better justice than I ever can--see this link: board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/29310.aspx?PageIndex=1

GeoffreyTransom's picture

I think we're talking past each other - it makes no sense to speak of 'my "efficiency"' when efficiency is defined as that which results in an intertemporally stable Nash equilibrium. In that context, an individual agent's "own" efficiency is a fiction - it would be like pretending that a recipe that uses five times as many eggs as required, is still 'efficient' from the point of view of the cook.

A Nash equilibrium is defined as a payoff structure from which no agent has any incentive to deviate (even though it may not be the highest possible payoff for any given player).

In the situation you mention as a counter-example, in which your 'morality' permits forced expropriation from others: there is a distinct incentive for at least one other agent (one or more of your victims) to seek to deviate from that payoff structure. Furthermore, there is incentive for others to try to jump on the same "steal from others" lark. As such, it is absolutely NOT 'efficient' intertemporally.

For whatever reason, there are some folks who are highly allergic to the idea that morality derives from a search for efficiency: they see morality as being metaphysical, and the search for moral values as being a quasi-spiritual endeavour, in strong counterpoint to the quest for efficiency, which these sort of people will characterise as 'ruthless' or 'mechanistic'. But *NEITHER* is true.

Man is a goal-oriented animal: he seeks happiness (NOT wealth, NOT power, NOT income, and NOT goods, sex, or whatever... all these things are sought because of the expectation that they will bring HAPPINESS).

Those who were taught economics PROPERLY, are taught that agents seek to maximise their *expected* 'utility' or 'felicity', subject to a set of constraints (prices, preferences, discount rates and so forth) that are outside the agent's control. Most students ignore the 'quest for happiness' meme that underlies the pedagogic tools (which they see as a dry set of optimal control problems - to be solved on exam day, and thereafter forgotten). Economics is about man's quest for happiness.

And how does man become the most happy given the constraints under which he operates? By doing everything in the most **efficient** way: that does NOT imply the 'least cost' way, either in production or consumption, or even in investment.

And moreover, 'efficiency' has a temporal aspect: if you seek to add to your happiness by stealing from others, then you have to squander a decent chunk of the pelf in paying for your own security - AND you set up a dynamic process whereby a bunch of OTHER folks decide they would like to horn in on your action. Thus the State has, for thousands of years, been riven by internal strife, invasion from outside, and crippling costs of its own protection.

The State is, therefore, the epitome of inefficiency (in the game-theoretic sense). They are Homer Simpson in the tar pit, seeking to pull out his legs with his hands, then his hands with his face.

Morality (which is just a word meaning "the way folks 'ought to' behave toward one another") *derives* from efficiency, and it *augments* efficiency - there is a virtuous circle from the quest for stable Nash equilibria, to objectively discernible modes of behaviour.

The 'metaphysical morality contrasted with ruthless efficiency' types would prefer that we were nice for nice's sake. That would be... well, nice: but it's not necessary, and it's certainly not sufficient, since there are observably people who are willing to be NOT nice (willing to live by force and fraud) to further their short term objectives.

Part of the reason I am an anarchist, is that I understand - from alpha to omega - the Public Goods rationale for government... which you might be shocked to know rests on the claim that by intervening in certain markets, governments INCREASE economic efficiency. And I know the conditions that make it a huge lie (hint: WAR blows up triangles of consumer surplus).

I can do the 'government ameliorates market failure' case like a performing seal - from suboptimal output in the presence of externalities/publicness, to the case for progressive taxation (due to diminishing marginal valuation of money)... even through to the presence of asymmetrically publicness and the notion of 'optimal taxation'. (My lecture notes were used by my best friend when he later became a tutor in Public Finance 15 years ago, when we were both grad students).

From there it's all downhill though - because of war; because of diseconomies of bureaucracy; because of the lack of a properly-formulated optimisation problem. Because, in short, of a LACK of proper drivers for **efficiency** (and the fact that the government's objective function is NOT the same as some weighted sum of the objective functionals of the society it purports to represent).

All that said: what I have seen of Stef's work on universally preferable behaviour is excellent, but leaves me slightly cold because it still rests at bottom on the idea that we 'should' do 'X' simply because it's "right". For me and others like me, it's "right" because it's efficient.

Voluntaryism is efficient, in part because it eliminates the diversion of resources that happens when you permit a State. But more deeply, a voluntaryist system woud have internal dynamics that were self-reinforcing: the State does not.

John T. Kennedy's picture

"it makes no sense to speak of 'my "efficiency"' when efficiency is defined as that which results in an intertemporally stable Nash equilibrium."

I've never seen efficiency so defined. Efficiency is a far more fundamental economic concept than a Nash equilibrium.

Take the Prisoner's Dilemma. The efficient outcome occurs when both parties cooperate, but both parties cooperating is certainly not a Nash equilibrium. And that's just a very simple case.

tzo's picture

My concept of universality does not come from Stefan's UPB, but rather from along these lines:

http://strike-the-root.com/all-men-are-created-equal

Suverans2's picture

One the saddest things I see is that some people who argue against the "Natural Law" [I put those "scare quotes" in for you, John T. Kennedy (wink)], apparently don't even have a clue what the Natural Law of Man is.

"The natural law is defined by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, "honorary 'professor of ethics and the law of nature' at the University of Geneva", to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature..." ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c. 1891), page 694

Notice that he makes no mention of a god. And, you who are proselytizing for your atheistic belief-system by using such words as "sky-wizard", you won't win many converts over by being childishly insulting. I call atheism a "belief-system", since it is far more rational to be agnostic, since there is not a preponderance of proof "for" or "against" there being a "first cause", as Thomas Paine so thoughtfully put it in his treatise, Age of Reason.

Question for you nay-sayers; bees and ants and lions and wolves, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, each have their own peculiar "natural law" for survival of the individual, as well as the group, so how is it that you "believe" that man is somehow mysteriously exempt from the "natural law of the human world", as Frank van Dun, Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy), Dr.Jur. (Doctor of Jurisprudence) - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law, (someone obviously far less intelligent, or thoughtful, than yourselves), for clarification, called it?

GeoffreyTransom's picture

There is a stark difference between proselytising for atheism (which I don't do), and proselytising AGAINST a stupid story in which an Iron Age nomad who is screwing his half-sister, gets chosen (on this ball of rock, picked specially from the hundreds of quadrillion stars in the observable universe) by a Sky Wizard who loves foreskin, blood and burnt offal.

From there, he (Avram) shows that he is a craven whip-kisser: he's prepared to kill his own son to cash in on the offer (the "slit your kid's throat" order gets called off at the last minute - otherwise that scumbag would have done it).

He's prepared to mutilate the genitals of his offspring to get in good with someone powerful.

And these traits are somehow laudable, in the eyes of the gullible: the adherents of the three dominant idiocies on the planet are prepared to call themselves "The Children of Abraham".

Now when you START from such idiotic primitive tribal stupidity, EVERYTHING that follows is tainted. Finding anything of subsequent value in the narrative would be like attending a Charles Manson lecture on making the best type of paper airplane (you never know - Charles might know just how to do it... but I would not listen to him because he claims that the Sky Wizard told him to kill, just like he told Moses to kill).

And just to be clear: there is an OVERWHELMING preponderance of proof AGAINST the idiotic fairy story told in the major works of religion. Religion is like smoking - unless you get 'em young, only an idiot will become religious once their faculties are developed (the number of totally irreligious children who become religious is vanishingly small compared to the number of religiously raise children who overcome their abuse).

And in any case if there is a causal agent for the universe, that's no reason to bend the knee to it - it would be as idiotic as the quarks in a flourine atom in my toothpaste setting up in worship of my cat: both God and the cat might find it mildly amusing, but the lives of the quarks will not alter materially if they pray to Bootsie.

Worshipping the OT type "Lord" simply because he can kick arse, is like worshipping the Syrian secret police simply because they can make your enemies disappear. It's the gutless act of a craven serf, and stems from a primitive view of power.

If God was genuinely powerful, he would not object to people thinking he was being a total dick in the OT. Ask any Amalekite... whoops, can't - they were all slaughtered [even the babies] on the order of the guy who claimed to have created a hundred quadrillion stars.

Here's a hint: anything is capable of creating a hundred quadrillion stars is unlikely to care who owns Jerusalem.

Rationalism - that's what gives us progress. And all churches, like all states, are the enemies of humanity.

Suverans2's picture

G'day GeoffreyTransom,

Thank you for the reply.

Don't know if you noticed, but I made no mention of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, or any other "revealed" religion's tome. The only thing I did make mention of, by name, is Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine. If you haven't read it, here is a link to it, so that you can. In it you may find a God more to your liking.

P.S. For future accuracy, you might be interested to know that Sarai was not, in the blood-sense of the word, Abram's, (there was no letter V in the ancient Ibriy (Hebrew) alephbet), "half-sister". Abram reportedly said "yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife", based on the following concept, brother. A careful reading of Genesis 11:31 will prove this out.

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother...

It's that or Abram flat out lied, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, since lying is how Yacob (no J or V in the ancient Ibriy) stole his brother's paternal blessing.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Geoffrey Transom,

I also find it very telling when someone jumps on the God-thing, while, most times missing, entirely, the more important things, which, in this case, (and in my opinion), was the last paragraph.

"Question for you nay-sayers; bees and ants and lions and wolves, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, each have their own peculiar "natural law" for survival of the individual, as well as the group, so how is it that you "believe" that man is somehow mysteriously exempt from the "natural law of the human world", as Frank van Dun, Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy), Dr.Jur. (Doctor of Jurisprudence) - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law, (someone obviously far less intelligent, or thoughtful, than yourselves), for clarification, called it?" [Emphasis added]

AtlasAikido's picture

For one so eloquent-- tanhadron--it is a pity that Man And Society chpt2 and Legislation and Objective Law Chp 12 of Market for Liberty by Tannehill were not read (the links in my prior post). It supports the position of objective natural laws such as gravity and NAP....and show the fallacy of Statute Laws...

A man who swallows poison even if he has complete confidence it is vitamins *will become ill*. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims if some govt forces do not interfere. It may not be immediate or readily apparent but it is inescapable. Interesting enough govt tries to dissolve these natural laws or ignore cause and effect and can obscure consequences particularly bad ones but not for long....Example minimum wage laws....But go ahead and read the short chapters. I believe you may find an answer to the issues you have.

Regards Atlas

John T. Kennedy's picture

I don't think it's inescapable in that sense. There is no reason in principle why someone like Stalin or Mao cannot do monstrous evil for a lifetime, live a long life of luxury, and die peacefully in their sleep. Sometimes that happens. It would be comforting to think that can't happen, but it's just not true. It would be comforting to that the score will be settled after death, but I don't believe that either.

AtlasAikido's picture

John, Not sure how you can know this about someone's personal life? In the sense that you speak *more likely* they are less human in all the meaning you and I attribute to life. There is always a price to pay....

It would make more sense that doing monster work would make monsters. If that is not so then having stolen luxury is hardly getting off the hook. Perhaps you could provide something that would actually convince anyone that Stalin was not continuously paranoid and that is a good way to live?

But you must be a fast reader indeed because the link I provided covers the issue you mention. Or perhaps you have read the works of Tannehill?

John T. Kennedy's picture

"John, Not sure how you can know this about someone's personal life?"

This is supposed to be a criticism of my analysis, but not your's? No doubt Stalin had things to fear, but his innocent victims weren't exactly free form that.

AtlasAikido's picture

Not a criticism but with all due respect perhaps John you missed the meaning of this point I made: "A man who swallows poison even if he has complete confidence it is vitamins will become ill. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims *If some Government forces do not interfere. It may not be immediate or readily apparent but it is inescapable*.

I point out and repeat with emphasis added AND with an example to your specific point *Interesting enough government tries to dissolve these natural laws or ignore cause and effect and can obscure consequences Particularly Bad Ones but not for long....[Example Only Governments can make it possible for Stalins. Mao's and thugs to be protected and served (in what appears abeyance of natural laws)]*....

This book I recommend is a book about an idea--the discovery of *what kind of society man needs in order to function efficiently and happily*....

Not envisioning a "Utopia" in which no man tries to victimize another. As long as men are human, they will be free to choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner against their fellows and there will always be some who act as brutes, inflicting their will on others by force. What the Tannehill's and I am proposing is a system for dealing with such which is far superior to the past and present govermental ones--*a system which makes the violation of human liberty far more difficult and less rewarding for all who want to live as brutes and downright impossible for those who want to be politicians!!*

Nor am I proposing a "Perfect" society (what ever that is).. Men are fallible so mistakes will always be made and there will never be a society of total equity. Under the present and past governmental systems however, blunders and aggressive intrusions into the lives of peaceful individuals tend to feed on themselves and to grow automatically so that what starts off as a small injustice (small tax, regulation, bureau etc ) inevitably becomes *a Colossus with Monsters* in time.

In a truly free society, blunders and aggression will tend to be self-correcting, because men who are *free to choose* will not have to deal with individuals and firms which are stupid, offensive or dangerous to those who they do business with (Back to my original point at the beginning of this post).

The society proposed is based on fundamental principles: No man or group of men--including any group of men calling themselves "the government" Stalin, Mao etc is morally entitled to initiate (start) the use of physical of force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force (fraud) against another man or group......(NAP--the Non-Aggression Principle)

Read on....Dear Reader,

Chapter One....The Market for Liberty:
Is Government Really Necessary?
http://mises.org/resources/6058

John, your concern regarding Stalin and Mao being--so called--exempt from Justice is precisely due to Government and the point I hopefully have addressed here. It is only one of many many in the book.

Cheers

John T. Kennedy's picture

"What the Tannehill's and I am proposing is a system for dealing with such which is far superior to the past and present govermental ones--*a system which makes the violation of human liberty far more difficult...."

I've been a market anarchist for more than a decade so maybe you're making some false assumptions in addressing this to me.

"John, your concern regarding Stalin and Mao being--so called--exempt from Justice is precisely due to Government and the point I hopefully have addressed here."

No, my point still stands. It will always be possible for some prudent criminals to thrive. The type of inescapable individual karma you're asserting is a comforting fiction.

AtlasAikido's picture

John if you are a so called market anarchist you are witnessed as taking far too much stock in "prudent criminals". As if free markets can never prevail in the law and defense. And again the book covers this specific issue! Perhaps you will address this?

As much as some try to hide it, the truth of the state is *continuously being uncovered*. So the foundation continues to crumble, not stand.

No, the future is not too bright for government and "prudent criminals"--and those who put too much stock in evil and not enough in the good--it is brightening for liberty which is to my knowledge due to natural laws and natural justice. They cannot apparently be by-passed.

Raise up free markets. Raise up the spontaneous order of the market. Raise up the agora. Not to smash the state, but to obviate it. Not to make it the victim, and encourage its supporters to give it more power, but to show it as the bully it is. Show the surplus order of the state for what it is, so that people choose to abandon it for something better. Apparently this does not stand for John.

In fact a would be "prudent" tyrant's customers--in a free market--would be an obstacle to him....He could not extract taxes from them, as govt does, he could not even force them to buy his service at all....

...Govt employees are legally protected from suffering personal consequences as a result of all but the most blatant acts of the aggressive acts which they perpetrate "in the line of duty". Such functionaries as police officials, judges and revenue agents can initiate force with immunity by taking protection under such cliches as "I don't write The Law; I just enforce it" or "that's a matter for a jury to decide" or "this statute was passed by duly elected reps of the people". But employees of a free market defense company would have no such legal immunity from retaliatory force; they would have to assume responsibility for their actions...

...It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which *crime bosses* are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels. From the $50 payoff to the local cop to the $10,000 contribution to a senator's campaign fund organized crime regularly protects itself by buying off govt opposition.

...In a laissez-faire society aggressors would not only be scattered but weak and unorganized they would find it next to impossible to buy off free market protection and arbitration agencies. Customers of a defense company don't have to keep patronizing it if they find out its employees have been accepting payoffs from aggressors.. They are free to do what citizens can never do--find some other agency to protect them. A free market agency could not afford to have under-world connections even with the small and unimportant underworld of a free market...When the news media revealed its shady dealings its customers would desert it...

...Furthermore customers of a free market defense company are not imbued with a citizen's patriotic fervor and obedience and thus are much harder to lure into foolish collectivist endeavors (such as national unity). Free men don't leap like fools and sheep to defend a flag or sacrifice themselves for the cause of politicians ("prudent criminals"). These are some of the many ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely from a govt system of any sort and so called prudent criminals.

....While it is generally recognized that man's physical and even his mental nature are subject to the rule of natural law it is just as generally assumed that in the area of morality, and specifically moral human relationships, is completely outside the scope of natural law. This assumption is held tacitly, rather than identified and defended, simply because it can't be defended. It is completely foolish to assert that man is a being with a specific nature and therefore subject to the rules of principles derived from that nature in all areas...except when he deals with other men. Do men men cease to have a specific nature when they come into relationship with other men? Of course not!

John T. Kennedy's picture

"John if you are a so called market anarchist you are witnessed as taking far too much stock in "prudent criminals". As if free markets can never prevail in the law and defense. And again the book covers this specific issue! Perhaps you will address this?"

Seems to me there is a clear difference between free markets prevailing in general and an inescapable individual karma. The former does not require the latter.

AtlasAikido's picture

If you mean karma as a euphemism for the consequences of natural laws? Not sure why you use karma when talking about natural laws (laws of identity and causality)? Too much of a floating abstraction (sky wizard stuff for me and I am not casting aspersions)....

But if one is unfamiliar with natural law then I could see how one could think of karma as separate from the other. I hold them as the same thing--I could be persuaded not to--but I try not to use that term unless talking with someone who uses it. LOL

It is precisely because of self interest (rational), competition and productive trade and its consequences that a free market works so well--in accordance with reality.

So? *It would seem John, something is off with your assertion*.

Free markets require and make it possible for inescapable individual consequences (Integrity and Justice) to manifest without being obscured. (But then that is what the book gets into and more--objectivity of laws of supply and demand--and hopefully as a *market* anarchist you are reading a seminal work by laissez-faire free market anarchists Linda and Morris Tannehill....)

The whole point is the difference between market freedom and government slavery. Is individual consequences interfered with in the case of government? Clearly yes to your point with Stalin and Mao. I pointed out that only govt and a belief in govt could make that possible.

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." [Frederick Douglass]

My advice: Treat everyone as if he owns himself. Because he does. Don't advocate that he be forced, "legally" or otherwise, to do ANYTHING, except for refraining from infringing on someone else's self-ownership. And if you do advocate using NON-DEFENSE FORCE, *don't pretend to believe in freedom*; and when you then find such *unjustified force aimed at YOU*, you damn well deserve it.

Oh yes I also covered the issue of: Not envisioning a "Utopia" in which no man tries to victimize another. Nor am I proposing a "Perfect" society (what ever that is)...in a prior post but I do show the basics of why laissez faire's--such as self correcting mechanism makes it superior....

Perhaps you don't read online pdfs. There is also a free audio at Mises.org for "Market For Liberty" and Robert Murphy wrote "Chaos Theory" which is also free.

John T. Kennedy's picture

"If you mean karma as a euphemism for the consequences of natural laws? Not sure why you use karma when talking about natural laws (laws of identity and causality)?"

I use the word karma because you're asserting that the free market is an inescapable mechanism for balancing the scales of justice, functionally the same as the Indian concept of karma or the christian concept of judgement/afterlife.

Free markets are wonderful but they are not a perfect mechanism for balancing the scales of justice.

"The whole point is the difference between market freedom and government slavery. Is individual consequences interfered with in the case of government? Clearly yes to your point with Stalin and Mao. I pointed out that only govt and a belief in govt could make that possible. Although Stalin and Mao were clearly unfree. And that I do not doubt they suffered the personal consequences of being psychopaths even though they may not have seen themselves as such."

Forget Stalin and Mao for a moment and consider Western heroes such as Eisenhower and Churchill. Or any popular president will do, say Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. All of these men are moral criminals yet they have public honors heaped upon them and hardly anyone considers them psychopaths. Do you suppose these people lived in shame or fear as a result of their moral crimes? History seems to show that they were prod of many of these crimes and revered for them. To say that this is only so because government interferes with your inescapable moral mechanism is only to admit the mechanism is not inescapable, which is my point.

But put government aside. Suppose a man's son needs an expensive operation to save his life. The man cannot afford it. He robs a bank to pay for it. Because he is smart and or lucky he gets away with the robbery leaving no clues, pays for the operation and his son lives. Now the man may feel guilty about robbing the bank and he may feel some apprehension that he could someday be caught, but there is no reason in principle why he cannot happily bear those costs in return for his son's life. He committed a moral crime and yet may still profit from it. Where is the inescapable justice?

"Perhaps you don't read online pdfs. There is also a free audio at Mises.org for "Market For Liberty" and Robert Murphy wrote "Chaos Theory" which is also free."

I'm fully aware of the literature. I'm aware of the Tannehills, but have not read them. I may read them someday but I'm pretty sure I know the gist of what's in it. I've known Bob Murphy for ten years, in fact he was a contributor to my web site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050817134418/http://www.no-treason.com/Murphy/

AtlasAikido's picture

Govt introduces chaos where there is none. This simple point seems to allude you. Perhaps your time would be better served reading what you clearly are out of touch with. And this includes your inability to read what is in front of you: I never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia but I do point to one that is far superior than what we have--a free market system and I supply reasons.

You started off with Stalin, and Mao and now you're onto Churchill and Eisenhower. Again Govt introduces chaos where there is none!

Frankly you could have read the parts that you are clearly out of touch with the first time I brought it up. John, I am not Morpheus and you are clearly not Neo. Apparently you have a problem opening a book let alone a door to self-knowledge.

I am so impressed that you know Murphy --too bad that's as far as it goes because I see no similarity other than you are friends. It is sad that you have come this far and show all the hall marks evidenced here of appeal to authority and social metaphysics.

John T. Kennedy's picture

"I never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia..."

You said the consequences of aggression were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison. This is the assertion I've contested, because it's pretty obviously not true.

"I never said there was a perfect system..."

Inescapable moral consequences would comprise a perfect system in a very real sense.

"It is sad that you have come this far and show all the hall marks evidenced here of appeal to authority and social metaphysics."

Where have I appealed to authority?

AtlasAikido's picture

John: You [AtlasAikido] said the consequences of aggression were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison. This is the assertion I've contested, because it's pretty obviously not true.

"I [AtlasAikido] never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia..."

If the consequences may not be immediately visible on the aggressor they certainly are on the victims.

Again: Not envisioning a "Utopia" in which no man tries to victimize another. As long as men are human, they will be free to choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner against their fellows and there will always be some who act as brutes, inflicting their will on others by force. What the Tannehill's and I am proposing is a system for dealing with such which is far superior to the past and present govermental ones--*a system which makes the violation of human liberty far more difficult and less rewarding for all who want to live as brutes and downright impossible for those who want to be politicians!!*

Again: Nor am I proposing a "Perfect" society (what ever that is).. Men are fallible so mistakes will always be made and there will never be a society of total equity. Under the present and past governmental systems however, blunders and aggressive intrusions into the lives of peaceful individuals tend to feed on themselves and to grow automatically so that what starts off as a small injustice (small tax, regulation, bureau etc ) inevitably becomes *a Colossus with Monsters* in charge.

John T. Kennedy's picture

"If the consequences may not be immediately visible on the aggressor they certainly are on the victims."

But of course that's nothing like the consequences to the individual of eating poison, is it?

Here was your original statement I disputed:

"A man who swallows poison even if he has complete confidence it is vitamins *will become ill*. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims if some govt forces do not interfere. It may not be immediate or readily apparent but it is inescapable."

You were clearly speaking of inescapable consequences to the aggressor. That is precisely what I have contested all along. You can't defend your original assertion by writing as if I contested something else.

AtlasAikido's picture

If I have not made the case for inescapable consequences it is because there is book that addresses this issue in a much more complete manner. I prefer to not retype the book here. "The free market is a product of the working of natural laws in the area of human relationships, specifically economic relationships". Consequences are not inescapable. but they are transferable from perpetrator to victim and govt action is one major organized method--capable of multiplying the effects and spreading the consequences to large numbers of people--witness the bank bailouts transferred to the tax payers.

John T. Kennedy's picture

Now you write:

"Consequences are not inescapable. but they are transferable from perpetrator to victim and govt action is one major organized method--capable of multiplying the effects and spreading the consequences to large numbers of people--witness the bank bailouts transferred to the tax payers."

And here is your original statement which I have been disputing all along:

"A man who swallows poison even if he has complete confidence it is vitamins *will become ill*. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims if some govt forces do not interfere. It may not be immediate or readily apparent but it is inescapable."

Do you concede that your original statement said consequences to an individual aggressor were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison? Do you concede that your original statement was incorrect?

AtlasAikido's picture

Above para should read "Consequences ARE INescapable. but they are transferable from perpetrator to victim and govt action is one major organized method--capable of multiplying the effects and spreading the consequences to large numbers of people--witness the bank bailouts transferred to the tax payers".

AtlasAikido's picture

If I have not made the case for inescapable consequences it is because there is book that addresses this issue in a much more complete manner. I prefer to not retype the book here. But this is the *full para that pertains*.

Here is the quote from "The Market For Liberty Chapter 12 Legislation and Objective Law" P118:

"Natural law does apply to human relationships, and it is just as objective, universal, and inescapable in this area as in any other. The proof of this is that actions have consequences....in the area of human interaction as surely as in the area of human medicine. A man who swallows poison will become ill even if he has complete confidence the poison is nothing more than vitamins pills. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims (if some government forces do not interfere). A man who cheats his customers will be driven out of business by his more reputable competitors. The consequences of breaking the natural law cannot be avoided. No matter how cleverly a man schemes, he will suffer if he insists on acting in a manner which contradicts the nature of human existence. The consequences may not be immediate or readily apparent but they are inescapable."

John T. Kennedy's picture

"No matter how cleverly a man schemes, he will suffer if he insists on acting in a manner which contradicts the nature of human existence. The consequences may not be immediate or readily apparent but they are inescapable."

There you go - you claim an agressing individual must suffer inescapable consequences. Let's look at Bill Clinton. Forget the sex scandal. As every President does, Clinton violated rights daily, acting "in a manner which contradicts the nature of human existence", as the Tannehills would have it. Will he be hounded to his grave for these crimes? Will he be impoverished? Do you suppose he feels guilty about governing? Do you think he gets less women on the side because of his crimes? Is he less poplular at parties?

Please explain how Clinton's crimes will lead to his inescapable suffering.

AtlasAikido's picture

First things first: "How can you presume to say somebody--Spooner a dead man--would not sign something that he has not read (the Covenant of Unanimous Consent)?

How can you presume to know the subject of someone's mind--a dead man's no less--without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?"

Answer the question that was already posed to you regarding your claims. You skipped right over that!

Secondly: Regarding that an individual must suffer inescapable consequences.

Now what was the context and circumstances of that statement? There were several qualifiers that I provided.

The paras are about natural consequences. I have explained how that transfer of consequences occurs and how one man can commit more evil than he can possibly be made to repay. And I have explained the solution.

If you are in outrage that "Justice"--a man made concept is indeed not a natural law and that it was unclear or misleading. Get to the point. That's your argument? Got it! I am not going to throw the Tannehill's seminal work out the window because of that one mis-cue. It is the only one you have and it is NO longer something hidden *AND it does not pertain to what they wrote*. Apparently you are not sure what it is yourself. I have provided it for you.

I am interested in freedom and liberty and not repeating the mistakes of the past. Perhaps you should look to that.

John T. Kennedy's picture

"How can you presume to know the subject of someone's mind--a dead man's no less--without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?" "

I did quote Spooner at length demonstrating he would think this supposed covenant was idle wind because it adds nothing to anyone's moral obligations.

"I have explained how that transfer of consequences occurs and how one man can commit more evil than he can possibly be made to repay. And I have explained the solution. "

That's not what you said in the staement I originally disputed and it's certainly not what the Tannehills said in the passage you quoted.

"If you are in outrage that "Justice"--a man made concept is indeed not a natural law and that it was unclear or misleading. Get to the point. That's your argument? Got it! I am not going to throw the Tannehill's seminal work out the window because of that one mis-cue."

Who asked you to throw away anything? It would be nice, for you I think, if you could admit when you've said something mistaken and someone's called you on it. Really, it feels good to fold a losing hand once you get the hang of it. But it's no skin off my nose.

AtlasAikido's picture

Re: "How can you presume to know the subject of someone's mind--a dead man's no less--without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?" "

Interestingly you do indeed have selective reading. "How can you presume to say somebody--Spooner a dead man--would not sign something that he has not read (the Covenant of Unanimous Consent)? This was the first question.

You still have not answered it. You hold others to a standards you don't follow yourself (hypocrisy). And still nothing *specific*.

Re: "If you did quote Spooner at length demonstrating he would think this supposed covenant was idle wind because it adds nothing to anyone's moral obligations"

Then you missed the point...

If your own moral obligations are not important enough to state--as if your own writings here are in dispute by your own reckoning, who knows?--And if it is not for you to know explicitly and improve on; And for others to know you--without binding them down (your words)--Then Of course nothing regarding an inter-relationship Covenant could filter thru such blank outs, let alone a dead man.

Re: "I have explained how that transfer of consequences occurs and how one man can commit more evil than he can possibly be made to repay. And I have explained the solution. " Re: That's not what you said in the staement (sic) I originally disputed and it's certainly not what the Tannehills said in the passage you quoted.

The transfer of consequences explains how your Presidents get away with murder on a grand scale. It is not something you seem to be able to provide to the discussion.

Work-It-Out John.... I unconditionally reserve the right to become more intelligent about any subject. That being the case, what critical significance should we assign to me not re-typing enough of a book on this blog and me finally clarifying and improving a point you made?

Right now, the world is on fire (to cite just two examples) aggressive war and aggressive fiat currency inflation — the former being nothing other than mass murder, the latter being massive theft through official fraud*. SOOooo…. The REAL scandal here is that I did not catch your obtuse examples and did not attribute that you were on to something I missed?

Re: "If you are in outrage that "Justice"--a man made concept is indeed not a natural law and that it was unclear or misleading. Get to the point. That's your argument? Got it! I am not going to throw the Tannehill's seminal work out the window because of that one mis-cue." Re; Who asked you to throw away anything? It would be nice, for you I think, if you could admit when you've said something mistaken and someone's called you on it. Really, it feels good to fold a losing hand once you get the hang of it. But it's no skin off my nose.

You dismissed it (the book). Indeed you won't read it. In fact you can't even get to the point. Apparently you are more interested in making sure I am wrong and you are right.

I don't see you providing any solutions but parables with assertions and conclusions without support that amount to social metaphysics and despair. I see you as what you are--a sophist and a troll.

Serves me right for feeding a troll.

Suverans2's picture

Delete double post.

Suverans2's picture

G'day AtlasAikido,

Thank you for the quote, and contrary to what I am about to write, I do like it and have saved it.

The first portion of the first sentence shows us how little the author understands what natural law, or law of nature, as opposed to the laws of nature, are, a confusion of terms all too common.

    3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings...existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power.

    6. Physical laws, or laws of nature. The invariable tendency or determination of any species of matter to a particular form with definite properties, and the determination of a body to certain motions, changes, and relations, which uniformly take place in the same circumstances, is called a physical law.

Earlier I wrote, and it bears repeating, IMO: One the saddest things I see is that some people who argue against the "Natural Law" apparently don't have a true understanding of what the Natural Law of Man is.

"The natural law is defined by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, "honorary 'professor of ethics and the law of nature' at the University of Geneva", to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature..." ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c. 1891), page 694

So, as you can readily see, to say, "Natural law does apply to human relationships", is a silly statement, it shows us that the author really doesn't understand what the "natural law of the human world" is.

I should have also said, in my original posting of the above, "and even some proponents of the Natural Law apparently don't have a true understanding of what the Natural Law of Man is."

AtlasAikido's picture

Hi, Suverans2

I like the quote and the book that supports it...

"While it is generally recognized that man's physical and even his mental nature are subject to the rule of natural law it is just as generally assumed that in the area of morality, and specifically moral human relationships, is completely outside the scope of natural law. This assumption is held tacitly, rather than identified and defended, simply because it can't be defended. It is completely foolish to assert that man is a being with a specific nature and therefore subject to the rules of principles derived from that nature in all areas...except when he deals with other men. Do men men cease to have a specific nature when they come into relationship with other men? Of course not!"....

Read on Dear Reader, I'd love to read a refutation of the book especially given what is at stake...

...Paraphrased: Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed over). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

The Market for Liberty
Morris and Linda Tannehill
http://mises.org/resources/6058

Book review--Freedom Naturally
http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally

PS "The free market is a product of the working of natural laws in the area of human relationships, specifically economic relationships". Consequences are inescapable. (Notice how no system is referred to)

AtlasAikido's picture

You are right it is not appeal to authority. It is an appeal to ignorance. You deliberately refuse to read the book by your own admission but pretend to know what it says.

AtlasAikido's picture

Natural law has consequences. It will either be paid by the perpetrator or his victims.

Regarding Mao and Stalin etc as being exempt from natural laws.

Not so.

Even if Stalin personally escaped some of the consequences they were never the less transferred to others. His victims were not necessarily innocent.

Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature.

An animal cannot do anything against his own nature without suffering the consequences which is usually pain or death..

A man who does something against his nature will suffer consequences. ( a rabid dog can only infect those who he comes into contact with)

Man being a higher level animal the consequences of what he does may affect other animals. (Man can infect inflict consequences on people who do not even know of his existence.)

Illustration of this is. Man is capable of creating and exploding small bomb, medium sized bomb and atomic bomb. Consequences of each, effect people within the radius of the bomb explosion. Same is true with Govt.

As a rabid dog will effect many victims before his death so it is with an evil human being, effect more than just himself. The person who does not kill a rabid dog allows evil by inaction to multiply.

Man is capable of more evil than one man can pay the price. The consequences of that evil are inescapable in that they are propagated and spread out to those who sanction victim hood...

People who allow mad dogs or tyrants to exist become victims themselves of their own refusal to deal with reality in a sensible and rational manner.

If you allow a tyrant to exist then by natural law you will suffer the consequences of such. Some of us are protecting ourselves as best as we can.